Long Range Plan Minutes October 23, 2006

Long Range Plan Review Committee
Minutes
October 23, 2006

Members in Attendance:
Harry Amend* Susan Clayton Chris Hammons Erin Lenz Joel Palmer
Rosie Astorquia* Jane Curtis Russ Hansen Bryan Martin* Lori Smith
Hazel Bauman* Jim Ferguson Katie Harris Jill Neal Tami Stroud
Jeff Bengtson Scott Fischer* Doug Jaworski Vern Newby* Lynn Vershum
Steve Briggs* Lana Hamilton Mary Larson Dave Patzer Dianna Walde

*Ex-officio members

Welcome:
Dave Patzer called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. The meeting was held at the Midtown Center meeting room. Binders were provided to the committee. Dave asked the committee members to introduce themselves.

Approval of September Minutes:
There were some questions raised about the September 25th motion. It was felt that the committee had not yet made a determination that the levy election would be held in May (spring was discussed) and it was also felt that the S.P.F.L. was not mentioned as part of the motion. After committee discussion, a substitute motion was made. Motion by Russ Hansen, second by Mary Larson that the Long Range Planning Committee is going to take some time to study where to go with the S.P.F.L. and concentrate our energies right now on the Supplemental Maintenance and Operations Levy tentatively scheduled in the spring, approved unanimously. It was requested that future recommendations that the committee will be voting on be written on the board.

History of Long Range Planning Committee:
The committee was provided with a memo from Steve Briggs regarding the history of the Long Range Planning Committee. Attached to that memo was the initial history that was in the 1993/1994 Long Range Plan. He briefly went over the information and emphasized the importance of this committee. He also discussed the failure of the March S.P.F.L. which had a lot to do with outside influences and variables which the committee had no control over, as was evidenced in the Robinson Research Survey. As a result of this, the committee has had to re-evaluate, re-form and move forward in a different way.

Selection of Committee to Review the By-Laws:
Dave Patzer explained that this committee is governed by the by-laws which are approved by the Board of Trustees. He feels that these by-laws should be periodically reviewed. He asked for three volunteers to study, review and refresh the by-laws over the next two months (approximately three meetings). The three volunteers were Susan Clayton, Doug Jaworski and Jane Curtis.

Election of Vice Chair
Dave explained that, in accordance with the by-laws, a Vice Chair needs to be selected for this committee. This would be a current committee member that is in, at the most, year three of their term and would become the Chair of the committee next year. He asked the committee to think about this and to communicate their interest to him.

Challenges for the 2006-07 School Year:
Harry Amend pointed out that at the last meeting the committee discussed the first steps it needed to go through in order to the start the new work for this year. At this meeting, Harry felt the first step should be to discuss the failed March 2006 S.P.F.L. Should it be renewed or re-worked? He emphasized that this conversation was necessary prior to discussing the next S.P.F.L. proposal. He opened it up for committee discussion and the following comments were made:

• With the current enrollment trend, is a new elementary school still considered a high priority to be included in the S.P.F.L.? Where will it be located? Harry responded that this came out as a negative item in the survey. His opinion was that this needs to be looked at closely by the committee and enrollment patterns need to be studied.
• Is the remaining money ($4,000,000) dedicated for the Lakes project or can it go towards a smaller project(s)? This is yet to be determined by this committee.
• Due to escalating costs and in order to rebuild our credibility, the next S.P.F.L. needs to be scaled down (1 or 2 projects) and for a shorter duration. It needs to be brought in under budget and on time.
• Enrollment projections and trends need to be discussed. Harry explained how the District comes up with their enrollment projections i.e. new housing starts, live birth rates, current enrollment, etc. He further explained that it is a hard target predict. The District is predicting a decline in enrollment over the next five years. There are some variables that the District is facing such as out-of-district enrollment and IB programs which attract more students. This will be studied further over the next few months. This year the District has seen increases in 9th and 12th grade enrollment which is unusual. After phone calls were made to these students, it was discovered that some came to this District due to programming, a private school stopped offering high school, etc.
• Where does the funding come from for the IB and Advanced Learning programs? These programs, along with others, are currently funded with general fund monies and were enhanced with the Supplemental Maintenance & Operations Levy. This levy will be run again this spring and only passed with a 54% passage rate two years ago. The plans for this levy have not been completely developed yet.
• Were the 2002 S.P.F.L. projects completed in order of priority? Due to not having enough money to complete the Lakes project, the Ramsey project was moved up in priority. The rest of the projects were completed in order. It has been stated that the District has not done everything they were supposed to do with the S.P.F.L. monies but the money was spent appropriately and legally as authorized by the vote and in accordance with the ballot language.
• It was felt that when looking forward to the next S.P.F.L., it should be smaller on scale but broader in scope (look at all 3 middle schools’ needs). It could perhaps be a middle school levy that would positively affect all 3 schools and reach a lot of voters. As a good faith measure, let the voters know that there is $4,000,000 left (currently invested with the State Treasurer’s Pool) and this could be the seed money which would reduce the cost of the next levy.
• It was pointed out that some of that existing money may be needed to purchase property. This is in accordance with the 2002 ballot language.

Dave Patzer asked Chris Hammons, Lakes Middle School principal, to summarize the feelings of his staff, student and parents due to the failure of the S.P.F.L. Chris explained that when the 2002 S.P.F.L. was passed the staff and students had a lot of hope. Later on when it was being analyzed whether to remodel the existing building or build new and it became clear that the money would be better spent building a new facility. It was agreed to wait until the next S.P.F.L. so this could be accomplished. Unfortunately, the levy failed. He stated that right now the staff has a feeling of what is going to happen next. Will the building be remodeled? Will the patrons approve an S.P.F.L.? The staff would like to use some of $4,000,000 right now for furniture, technology, etc. which could be transferred to another facility down the road because there is a question about how much to invest in the current facility. Chris stated that receiving air conditioners at their current facility has been a big boost.

Board of Trustees Report – Vern Newby:
Vern discussed some of the issues that will be going before the voters in November.

Next Meeting:
Harry encouraged the members to study the information that was provided to them in their binders prior to the next meeting. Tonight’s conversation will be continued at the next meeting. The next Long Range Planning meeting will be held on Monday, November 27th at 4:30 p.m. at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheri Beard
Administrative Secretary

Home